beta
Text
1. The Defendant indicated on the attached list No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 of the attached list among the real property 1 floors to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an organization consisting of owners, such as land, etc. conducting an urban environment improvement project by setting the land of 43,281.8 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district.
B. The Defendant: (a) leased and occupied the portion (A) part of the attached Form No. 302.1m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) connected in order to each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1 on the 1st floor; and (b) operated the said real estate with the trade name “D” at that place; and (c) the said real estate is located
C. The head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the Plaintiff’s project implementation on September 11, 2014, and announced it on the same day, and approved the management and disposal plan on November 26, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant management and disposal plan”), and announced it on the same day.
On the other hand, on July 28, 2017, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal made a ruling on expropriation of the instant real estate, etc. (hereinafter “instant ruling on expropriation”) on September 15, 2017 for the Plaintiff’s improvement project. Accordingly, on August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 40,581,000 as business loss compensation (business loss compensation) determined by the said ruling on August 31, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5-1, 2, 6 through 9, Eul evidence 3-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the plaintiff's assertion on the previous defense on the merits of this case against the defendant, the defendant raised a defense that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff did not have any error in the procedure for its formation, and there is no ability to agree with the members of the executive organ as it is illegal.
However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is not a promotion committee as a pre-stage for the establishment of an association for the purpose of implementing a rearrangement project, notwithstanding its name, but a committee for the maintenance and improvement of urban areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).